Both Simon Bolivar and George Washington were in very similar circumstance. Both trying to break away from European powers and both trying to unite many states into a super big country. Washington succeeded. Bolivar failed. The reasons are complex but one main factor was the style of development. In French Canada and New England states the major method of bringing in the European population was through indentured servitude. Young people would be paid passage to North America and have to work for the benefactor for a period of 5 to 7 years after which the would become free citizens. By that t
Both Simon Bolivar and George Washington were in very similar circumstance. Both trying to break away from European powers and both trying to unite many states into a super big country. Washington succeeded. Bolivar failed. The reasons are complex but one main factor was the style of development. In French Canada and New England states the major method of bringing in the European population was through indentured servitude. Young people would be paid passage to North America and have to work for the benefactor for a period of 5 to 7 years after which the would become free citizens. By that time they would have either collected enough money to buy a plot of land and start their own homestead or be given by the state a larger plot of land to develop their own farm in a outlying area close to the wilderness. Within a few decades a ever increasing tapestry of various type of homesteads, business owners and landowners with voting rights formed the backbone of French Canada and New England states.
South America Developed completely different. The Spanish and Portuguese models were to At first allocate very large plots of land and offer them to Europeans of lower noble class to develop enormous plantations. Which they did, as these plantations became larger and more numerous, non European labour was brought in with very little cost or as slave labour. This created a system similar to that of feudal Europe of the Middle Ages, with lords and peasants with no middle class and no voting rights. A couple centuries later when Bolivar tried to form his United States of South America he had full support from the uneducated peasants and freed slaves against the powerful land owners who had the support of Spain . Brasil similar situation. Although South America did break away from Europe, the lack of a middle class society failed to make them as successful as Anglo/French countries to the north due to lower expectation standards and high corruption.
Multiple reasons, including:
- Poverty - While some of the nations in Latin America have vast mineral and agricultural wealth (Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, etc), most of their populations are also rather large, meaning that it’s difficult for their governments to “spread the wealth” among their populations. Conversely, some of the nations in the region have limited natural resources (Haiti, Costa Rica, French Guiana,etc) and they have been unable to grow their GDP’s as a result
- Corruption - Most of the nations in Latin America have extensive histories of corruption at all levels of governm
Multiple reasons, including:
- Poverty - While some of the nations in Latin America have vast mineral and agricultural wealth (Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, etc), most of their populations are also rather large, meaning that it’s difficult for their governments to “spread the wealth” among their populations. Conversely, some of the nations in the region have limited natural resources (Haiti, Costa Rica, French Guiana,etc) and they have been unable to grow their GDP’s as a result
- Corruption - Most of the nations in Latin America have extensive histories of corruption at all levels of government. While some have launched anti-corruption campaigns, these have had mixed results and that lack of accountability and transparency has limited outside investment in those countries.
- Lack of a manufacturing base - Brazil, Mexico and Argentina are the only nations in Latin America with significant manufacturing bases. Manufacturing creates higher wage skilled work, which then creates additional jobs. The remainder of the nations in the region have economies based upon resource extraction/exportation, agriculture and tourism, none of which are going to make more than a small sliver of the population wealthy.
- Drugs - The drug trade from South America to the United States has retarded the growth of multiple nations along the route. Not only is corruption an issue, violence accompanies the drug trade and that causes businesses to avoid areas where it occurs. Finally, many of the most productive people in various nations of Latin America have gone into the lucrative drug business rather than other less profitable businesses. That “brain drain” has had a detrimental effect upon the nations economic growth.
- Poor leadership - Many of the nations in Latin America have chosen populist leaders, but not competent ones. These leaders have driven away business investment by nationalizing companies, failing to control corruption and cronyism, failing to address social problems within the nations, and by failing to work on their relationship with the most powerful nation in the Americas, the United States.
- The United States - To be very frank, it doesn’t behoove the United States to have a powerful rival in the Americas. Given the expansionist and interventionist policies in the past, if the US had a rival in Latin America one or more conflicts would have erupted by now. The US views the nations in a paternalistic manner, rather than as potential partners and equals, and that treatment has impaired most those nations’ economic growth.
The limitations of Latin America’s geography were compounded right from the beginning in the formation of its nation states. In the United States, once the land had been taken from its original inhabitants, much of it was sold or given away to small landholders; by contrast, in Latin America the Old World culture of powerful landowners and serfs was imposed, which led to inequality. On top of this, the European settlers introduced another geographical problem that to this day holds many countries back from developing their full potential: they stayed near the coasts, especially (as we saw in A
The limitations of Latin America’s geography were compounded right from the beginning in the formation of its nation states. In the United States, once the land had been taken from its original inhabitants, much of it was sold or given away to small landholders; by contrast, in Latin America the Old World culture of powerful landowners and serfs was imposed, which led to inequality. On top of this, the European settlers introduced another geographical problem that to this day holds many countries back from developing their full potential: they stayed near the coasts, especially (as we saw in Africa) in regions where the interior was infested by mosquitoes and disease. Most of the countries’ biggest cities, often the capitals, were therefore near the coasts, and all roads from the interior were developed to connect to the capitals but not to one another.
The capital of Brazil is Brasília, a planned city that was built to be the capital of the country. Before that,Brazil had two other capital cities: Salvador and Rio de Janeiro (both at coast).
In some cases, for example in Peru and Argentina, the metropolitan area of the capital city contains more than 30 percent of the country’s population. The colonialists concentrated on getting the wealth out of each region, to the coast and on to foreign markets. Even after independence the predominantly European coastal elites failed to invest in the interior, and what population centers there are inland remain poorly connected with one another.South America is in effect a demographically hollow continent and its coastline is often referred to as the “populated rim.”
<<<>>>Border dispute
- A naval arms race among Argentina, Brazil and Chile—the most powerful and wealthy countries in South America—began in the early twentieth century , which held back the development of all three.
- Particularly bitter is the relationship between Bolivia and Chile, which dates back to the 1879 War of the Pacific in which Bolivia lost a large chunk of its territory, including 250 miles of coastline, and has been landlocked ever since. It has never recovered from this blow, which partially explains why it is among the poorest Latin American countries. Time has not healed the wounds between them, nor those between the two countries. Despite the fact that Bolivia has the third-largest reserves of natural gas in South America it will not sell any to Chile, which is in need of a reliable supplier. National pride and geographical need on both sides trump diplomatic compromise.
- Guatemala claims Belize as part of its sovereign territory.Chile and Argentina argue over the Beagle Channel water route, Venezuela claims half of Guiana,and Ecuador has historical claims on Peru.
>>>>>>
Throughout history, successive governments in Mexico City have never had a firm grip on the country. Now its opponents, the drug cartels, have paramilitary wings which are as well armed as the forces of the state, often better paid, more motivated, and in several regions are regarded as a source of employment by some members of the public. The vast sums of money made by the gangs now swill around the country, much of it being washed through what appear on the surface to be legitimate businesses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Brazil, which makes up fully one-third of the land of South America, is the best example. It is almost as big as the United States. A third of Brazil is jungle, where it is painfully expensive, and in some areas illegal, to carve out land fit for modern human habitation.But the soil is so poor that within a few years crop-growing is untenable. The farmers move on to cut down more rainforest, and once the rainforest is cut it does not grow back. The climate and soil work against the development of agriculture.
Grand Escarpment dominates much of Brazil’s coast.Because the country lacks a coastal plain, to connect its major coastal cities you need to build routes up and over the escarpment, along to the next urban area and then back down. The lack of decent modern roads is compounded by a similar deficiency of rail track. This is not a recipe for profitable trading or for unifying a large space politically.
Brazil’s seven largest ports combined can handle fewer goods per year than the single American port of New Orleans. Brazil does not have direct access to the rivers of the Rio de la Plata region. The River Plate itself empties out into the Atlantic in Argentina, meaning that for centuries traders have moved their goods down the Plate to Buenos Aries rather than carry them up and down the Grand Escarpment to get to Brazil’s underdeveloped ports.
Read and understand. Quora summaries don’t get it.
“Viveza criolla is a Spanish language phrase literally meaning "creole' cleverness" and may be translated as "creoles' cunning",describing a way of life in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia and Venezuela, among other Latin American countries. It is a philosophy of progress along the line of least resistance and ignoring rules, a lack of sense of responsibility and consideration for others, and it extends to all social groups and throughout the whole country, although it predominates in Buenos Aires. Viveza criolla ha
Read and understand. Quora summaries don’t get it.
“Viveza criolla is a Spanish language phrase literally meaning "creole' cleverness" and may be translated as "creoles' cunning",describing a way of life in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia and Venezuela, among other Latin American countries. It is a philosophy of progress along the line of least resistance and ignoring rules, a lack of sense of responsibility and consideration for others, and it extends to all social groups and throughout the whole country, although it predominates in Buenos Aires. Viveza criolla has been called "the principal cause of a moral, cultural, economic, social and political crisis".”
A number of books, including those written by observant Latin Americans, cover the matter with considerable detail and insight. The failure and injuries are self-inflicted. Yet US universities continue their tirades that forms of government that were replaced over 200 years ago are somehow still responsible for continuing failure, despite the ability of other regions and nations to move quickly from colonial ashes and dictatorships to successful modern industrial and developed nations. India? China? Australia? Vietnam? Formerly colonial, yet now successful.
A culture of robbery -
A culture of corruption
The underdevelopment of Latin American countries is a complex issue influenced by a variety of historical, economic, social, and political factors. Here are some key reasons:
Historical Context
- Colonial Legacy: The colonial period established exploitative systems that extracted resources and wealth, often leaving indigenous populations marginalized and economies reliant on a few commodities.
- Independence Movements: Many countries gained independence in the 19th century but faced internal conflicts, political instability, and economic challenges, which hindered development.
Economic Factors
- Dependen
The underdevelopment of Latin American countries is a complex issue influenced by a variety of historical, economic, social, and political factors. Here are some key reasons:
Historical Context
- Colonial Legacy: The colonial period established exploitative systems that extracted resources and wealth, often leaving indigenous populations marginalized and economies reliant on a few commodities.
- Independence Movements: Many countries gained independence in the 19th century but faced internal conflicts, political instability, and economic challenges, which hindered development.
Economic Factors
- Dependence on Commodities: Many Latin American economies rely heavily on the export of raw materials (like minerals and agricultural products), making them vulnerable to global price fluctuations.
- Inequality: Economic inequality is prevalent, leading to limited access to education and healthcare for large segments of the population, which stifles human capital development.
- Debt Crises: Several countries have faced significant debt crises, which have led to austerity measures that negatively impact social services and infrastructure development.
Political Factors
- Authoritarian Regimes: Political instability, including military coups and authoritarian governments, has often undermined democratic institutions and hindered long-term development.
- Corruption: Corruption in government and business can divert resources away from public goods and services, exacerbating poverty and inequality.
Social Factors
- Education and Health: Limited access to quality education and healthcare has resulted in lower human development indices compared to more developed regions.
- Social Exclusion: Marginalized groups, including indigenous populations and Afro-descendants, often face systemic barriers that limit their economic opportunities.
Global Influence
- Neoliberal Policies: In the late 20th century, the adoption of neoliberal economic policies often prioritized deregulation and privatization, which sometimes led to increased inequality and social unrest.
- Foreign Intervention: Historical foreign interventions, often motivated by geopolitical interests, have disrupted local governance and economic development.
Conclusion
The underdevelopment of Latin America is not attributable to a single cause but rather a combination of historical injustices, economic vulnerabilities, political instability, and social inequalities. Addressing these issues requires comprehensive strategies that promote inclusive development, strengthen institutions, and invest in human capital.
In my opinion. It is because of Spanish classism. Imagine this. You have just conquered several towns that are very different from your European life. You have to teach them to be Spanish. Some do want to be Spanish, while others prefer to follow their customs.
To establish a solid base with rules, you create groups of people. You define who can be rich and who will be at your disposal as bondage or slaves.
You are going to divide the zones according to your category.
The rich on one side, the poor on the other. If you manage to create richer, you will lose money, because it will be a kind of com
In my opinion. It is because of Spanish classism. Imagine this. You have just conquered several towns that are very different from your European life. You have to teach them to be Spanish. Some do want to be Spanish, while others prefer to follow their customs.
To establish a solid base with rules, you create groups of people. You define who can be rich and who will be at your disposal as bondage or slaves.
You are going to divide the zones according to your category.
The rich on one side, the poor on the other. If you manage to create richer, you will lose money, because it will be a kind of competition. Therefore, to better control society, it is better to keep the poor as poor and ignorant.
México
Oh, but some are.
In terms of “First world, on par with the USA, Australia and Western Europe”, Chile matches that, it is a high income country and is quite safe.
The US even let's them use the Visa Waiver program, a strong indication if a country is very developed.
Argentina and Uraguay are also quite developed, and are close to Chile, they score highly on the HDI score as well, although crime is still a tad higher, but negligible.
And if we count the French area of “French Guyana” then we have another developed area.
Oh, but some are.
In terms of “First world, on par with the USA, Australia and Western Europe”, Chile matches that, it is a high income country and is quite safe.
The US even let's them use the Visa Waiver program, a strong indication if a country is very developed.
Argentina and Uraguay are also quite developed, and are close to Chile, they score highly on the HDI score as well, although crime is still a tad higher, but negligible.
And if we count the French area of “French Guyana” then we have another developed area.
1.Corruption
Latin America has the vast wealth of natural resources but corrupt leaders keep on plundering the wealth and thus enrich themselves instead ruling at the expense for the people
2.Colonialism
This is also the factor why latin america countries are undeveloped. Much of latin america was under spanish rule and thus they didn't industrialize and technologically advance. Yet, they plundered and took most of the vast wealth such as gold from the continent and the spaniards themselves made profit. They didn't use the vast wealth of resources to advance their colonies into developed colonies
1.Corruption
Latin America has the vast wealth of natural resources but corrupt leaders keep on plundering the wealth and thus enrich themselves instead ruling at the expense for the people
2.Colonialism
This is also the factor why latin america countries are undeveloped. Much of latin america was under spanish rule and thus they didn't industrialize and technologically advance. Yet, they plundered and took most of the vast wealth such as gold from the continent and the spaniards themselves made profit. They didn't use the vast wealth of resources to advance their colonies into developed colonies.
3.Interventionism
Latin America has had a history of interventionism led by the united states and thus has had effects on countries which have become unstable. The United States has launched coup d'etats against governments which stand up against western imperialism especially that of socialist governments. It has used the monroe doctrine as mean to interfere much in latin america and thus has led to chaos in most nations.
4.Failure of Capitalism and Socialism
Both Capitalism and Socialism failed to reduce the inequality and raise the better standards of the economy and thus is the reason why most countries such as chile and cuba have a history of economic hardship.
5.Instability
Instability is much common in latin america often caused by mismanagement of the state. Venezuela has gone economic and political instability and thus has impoverished the nation.
US interventionism is also the reason why most latin american countries like honduras, guatemala and nicaragua often experience much chaos.
Not all countries in latin america are undeveloped. There are places in latin america which are doing better and thus continue thriving:
Mexico
Belize
Bahamas
Barbados
Chile
Argentina
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Bolivia
high school in latin america teaches us, that capitalism is the worst thing in the world, the latin american teacher of history teaches you that we are poor countries cause we were robbed, and nobody talk about the wrong potitics of our countries and his wrong concept of law and order, there is no order in our countries, just caos and corruption. that is the reason.
I am convinced that it is because the USA prefers it to be that way. The Monroe Doctrine was the foreign policy doctrine for the United States for a very long time. I believe it still is part of our foreign policy. By keeping all of the countries in this hemisphere poor and more or less incapable, it frees the USA up to do "whatever it wants".
I had a Russian friend in MBA school who was an ex-Colonel in the spetznaz. I once asked him "What do you think America's biggest strength is?" His answer: "Your economy." I said, "Nope, it's our oceans. We are separated from every major industrialized n
I am convinced that it is because the USA prefers it to be that way. The Monroe Doctrine was the foreign policy doctrine for the United States for a very long time. I believe it still is part of our foreign policy. By keeping all of the countries in this hemisphere poor and more or less incapable, it frees the USA up to do "whatever it wants".
I had a Russian friend in MBA school who was an ex-Colonel in the spetznaz. I once asked him "What do you think America's biggest strength is?" His answer: "Your economy." I said, "Nope, it's our oceans. We are separated from every major industrialized nation in the world. We do not have to defend our borders and have no credible threats. We can do whatever we want." By keeping things this way, we can expend resources and energy on 'optional' or 'elective' endeavors.
Through drug policy, worker policy, and just generally keeping governments 'unstable', it is easy for us to keep these countries undeveloped.
This is pretty much a knee-jerk comment. I haven’t put much thought into it. So I welcome efforts to correct me.
I’d place the blame mainly on Roman Catholicism deeply wedded to the fact that the main occupying powers, Spain and Portugal, treated South America merely as a resource to be plundered rather than a land to be colonized and developed.
The Catholic Church bears most of the blame. They wholeheartedly sanctioned the plundering. And they wholeheartedly embraced the enslavement and genocide of the native populations.
They then continued to sanction the plundering while allowing the new sett
This is pretty much a knee-jerk comment. I haven’t put much thought into it. So I welcome efforts to correct me.
I’d place the blame mainly on Roman Catholicism deeply wedded to the fact that the main occupying powers, Spain and Portugal, treated South America merely as a resource to be plundered rather than a land to be colonized and developed.
The Catholic Church bears most of the blame. They wholeheartedly sanctioned the plundering. And they wholeheartedly embraced the enslavement and genocide of the native populations.
They then continued to sanction the plundering while allowing the new settlers to be treated little better than the now extinct natives.
South Americans occasionally wake up to this, but Catholicism is so deeply embedded in the minds of the people that freedom of thought rarely gains much traction. It resembles Islam in this respect. And American Christian Fundamentalism.
In more recent times, I’d say the US has had a big hand in preventing democracy from spreading in Latin America, too.
Roman Catholicism, like all major religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism), has a lot to answer for in terms of promoting human suffering to further it’s aims.
I say only ‘possible’ exception of Buddhism, because of what’s currently happening to the Rohingya’s in Myanmar. Which just goes to show that when Buddhism is a philosophy, it’s not bad. But once it becomes a religion it has a depressing tendency to be as evil as all the others.
When you say Latin America, you are including South America. But say that South America is underdeveloped is a wrong statement.
Three South American countries are part of the “developed world”, or you also can call as “first world”.
Those countries are Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.
Those three countries have European standards, so you cannot call this continent as underdeveloped. Colombia is on the way to become a first world country in the future.
Of course, there are some poor countries, but even Europe has some poor countries.
Remember that South American countries are very young, the colonialis
When you say Latin America, you are including South America. But say that South America is underdeveloped is a wrong statement.
Three South American countries are part of the “developed world”, or you also can call as “first world”.
Those countries are Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.
Those three countries have European standards, so you cannot call this continent as underdeveloped. Colombia is on the way to become a first world country in the future.
Of course, there are some poor countries, but even Europe has some poor countries.
Remember that South American countries are very young, the colonialists only used the countries to get resources, they didn’t develop anything. The development began only when the countries got independence. So they are quite young, they still have lots of potential to develop.
So in the future South America can even become the most developed continent in the world. Remember that and tell me about in 50 years from now.
Chile and Uruguay are kind-of developed, in the lowest tier of high income countries according to the World Bank. But still, unlike other answerers, I find the question valid.
Our issues with development stem from core differences in the ways of colonization and our systematic inability to surpass our colonial institutions, to overcome historical problems. Temperate regions also benefited due to the inheritance of european (mainly british) agricultural technologies developed in the 16th and 17th centuries.
In case you’re interested, I answered here in a more detailed manner: Juan Diego Celemín M
Chile and Uruguay are kind-of developed, in the lowest tier of high income countries according to the World Bank. But still, unlike other answerers, I find the question valid.
Our issues with development stem from core differences in the ways of colonization and our systematic inability to surpass our colonial institutions, to overcome historical problems. Temperate regions also benefited due to the inheritance of european (mainly british) agricultural technologies developed in the 16th and 17th centuries.
In case you’re interested, I answered here in a more detailed manner: Juan Diego Celemín Mojica's answer to What are the factors contributing to post-colonial success?
It's plain and simple. Almost all those nations in SA are either controlled by outside governments such as Canada, US and UK or they're economically targeted by them. Case in point Venezuela. Most Venezuelans lived in abject poverty for decades, while their nation was seeing great profits for American corporations. Eventually they pushed the US out and begun using socialism to pull their own people out of poverty. It worked for many years under Chavez. Venezuela became thr number 1 economy in latin America until George H.W Bush applied the first set of sanctions to their nation. At this point
It's plain and simple. Almost all those nations in SA are either controlled by outside governments such as Canada, US and UK or they're economically targeted by them. Case in point Venezuela. Most Venezuelans lived in abject poverty for decades, while their nation was seeing great profits for American corporations. Eventually they pushed the US out and begun using socialism to pull their own people out of poverty. It worked for many years under Chavez. Venezuela became thr number 1 economy in latin America until George H.W Bush applied the first set of sanctions to their nation. At this point the economy begun to suffer, mostly during the world recession caused by the US.
Problem with sanctions on Venezuela is they couldn't take loans out like most other nations going through the crisis. The US and its allies (such as Saudi Arabia) also created artificially low oil prices to strangle the Venezuelan economy. Venezuela tried to up their oil production but ran into some problems during the Obama administration. They can't import oil refinery parts because they're made in the US and the US sanctioned their ability to do so.. Venezuela has the number one oil reserves in the world and they're heavily dependent on oil sales to keep their economy going.
If you understand what the Monroe doctrine and big brother policy is, then you would understand the history of most these countries post colonialism. They went from being held down by Europe to being held down by Canada and the US. Mostly the US.
The US CIA and even the British MI6, played a role in almost all the nations of South and Central America, as well as the Carribeans during the cold war. They did mass damage that is still being repaired to this day..
Catholicism dominates Latin America — birth control is not in use. The way to become desperately poor is to have a baby out of wedlock, marry young and have a child before getting any kind of education. That’s why 4,000,000 Latin Americans have come to the US illegally—total lack of birth control. Their own countries economies can’t sustain them, so they come to the US as wage slaves, knowing that they will always get substandard pay, because their illegal entry prevents them from ever applying for citizenship or residency. An illegal alien working for $4 and is hoping to get a green card is l
Catholicism dominates Latin America — birth control is not in use. The way to become desperately poor is to have a baby out of wedlock, marry young and have a child before getting any kind of education. That’s why 4,000,000 Latin Americans have come to the US illegally—total lack of birth control. Their own countries economies can’t sustain them, so they come to the US as wage slaves, knowing that they will always get substandard pay, because their illegal entry prevents them from ever applying for citizenship or residency. An illegal alien working for $4 and is hoping to get a green card is like Henry VIII’s illegitimate son expecting to become king.
Slavery in the US was ended over 155 years ago, but the wealthy owners of labor-intensive businesses want them back. So the political parties, both controlled y wealthy donors, have discovered a back door to bring back slavery.
So when underorivileged Americans, which include Blacks, go looking for work, they are told there is no opening for anyone who isn,TVs de facto slave.
The most lucrative business in Latin America is overpopulating in order to send slaves to the US who will wire money back to their relatives.
Short answer: extractive institutions the last 500 years (read Why Nations Fail), poorly institutionalized constitutions the last 200, and bad terms of trade the last 100.
Shouldn't somebody have mentioned South America's fifty year dalliance, or however long is was, with import substitution industrialization? Latin American countries blocked foreign imports, refused to trade internationally, and attempted to produce all goods domestically. I think this lasted until sometime in the 80s. It might have worked better for some countries than it did for others, but my understanding was this was a huge flop and it stymied their growth in a major way.
This isn't really an area where I have a lot of knowledge. Any additional information on this topic or clarification
Shouldn't somebody have mentioned South America's fifty year dalliance, or however long is was, with import substitution industrialization? Latin American countries blocked foreign imports, refused to trade internationally, and attempted to produce all goods domestically. I think this lasted until sometime in the 80s. It might have worked better for some countries than it did for others, but my understanding was this was a huge flop and it stymied their growth in a major way.
This isn't really an area where I have a lot of knowledge. Any additional information on this topic or clarification would be great.
And Mexico at some point borrowed a ton of money from commerical Mexican banks, because they didn't want to accept the terms of the IMF or the World Bank or whatever and ended up with HUGE interest rates and debt that they couldn't pay back. I remember writing a paper on this ten years ago in school, but the details are hazy.
Since much of the “developed side” of South American countries has been covered in other answers, I’ll try to stick to the reasons why most of the region is still underdeveloped. Yes, there are clusters of development, but there is still a lot of work to do before we compare SA to Europe or the US, specially in social development and quality of life.
Despite said exceptions (Chile, and Argentina/Uruguay/Southern Brazil to an extent), most of South America is considered underdeveloped. This region has a few central historical, political and economical problems (please bear in mind that by no mea
Since much of the “developed side” of South American countries has been covered in other answers, I’ll try to stick to the reasons why most of the region is still underdeveloped. Yes, there are clusters of development, but there is still a lot of work to do before we compare SA to Europe or the US, specially in social development and quality of life.
Despite said exceptions (Chile, and Argentina/Uruguay/Southern Brazil to an extent), most of South America is considered underdeveloped. This region has a few central historical, political and economical problems (please bear in mind that by no means this is an official list or I’ll be able to provide links and stuff, it’s just that I have talked A LOT about this issue with other people at the university - who actually study this. So please take my opinions with a grain of salt):
1) A colonial past characterized by a resource-exploration focus (instead of population settling) which influenced the lack of urban planning, sanitation, investiments in education, etc. Moreover, the economies of these countries were centred on resource exploration, instead of industrialization. There are a few exceptions and some countries like Brazil were actually able to reverse this, but industrialization came late to South America and this had its consequences.
2) International pressures and interventions usually end up in leaving these countries in the same situations, either by the military dictatorships during the cold war brought about behind the scenes by the American govt (there are documentaries showing CIA was actually afraid of the communist outbreak in Cuba so it was in American interest to politically control this region). These military dictatorhips ended up dismantling the public education system and redistribution of land programs - which could lead to more equal opportunities for all - that were in course during the 60s. Also, economic interventions from institutions like the IMF usually tend to encourage intense economic austerity, which might contribute to the lack of much needed public investments (I’m not really into economy so I might be biased here);
3) Strong concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite determined not to lose their priviledges and status, which leads to a massive social gap, poverty, unemployment, violence, etc., ultimately leading to a general lack of democracy and widespread corruption, mainly by the elites who control the media, politics and the money, but not limited to - the people can be surprisingly as corrupt as their leaders; which leads to
4) Their own habits and culture. It is fairly common here to not think long-term, usually trying to avoid laws and find the ‘quick and easy’ way around, instead of doing things the proper formal way, and informality comes at a high cost - there’s an underlying feeling that nothing is done ‘properly’ and if you try to do so, you’ll fall behind the “smarter” ones. It is difficult to assess how much of this behaviour can be influenced by the historical conditions the region has been subected to, but I’d bet some of it can.
…..
…..
I think you need to define developed country. Chile for example is a very developed country, as well Brazil, in most senses of the word. I think what you are asking is why are there so many underdeveloped countries in Latin America, and the answers vary so much by country is it hard to generalize. However, one consistent trait is weak government that focuses more on satisfying their needs versus moving the country forward. Without a strong goal oriented central government, it is hard to mount the infrastructure that a country needs to progress (the funds tend to leak away into politicians
I think you need to define developed country. Chile for example is a very developed country, as well Brazil, in most senses of the word. I think what you are asking is why are there so many underdeveloped countries in Latin America, and the answers vary so much by country is it hard to generalize. However, one consistent trait is weak government that focuses more on satisfying their needs versus moving the country forward. Without a strong goal oriented central government, it is hard to mount the infrastructure that a country needs to progress (the funds tend to leak away into politicians pockets.)
Spain became rigidly controlled by its monarch. The Inquisition, for instance, did not report to the Pope but to the king. The pope could not end its excesses because it was used an instrument of state control, not as an expression of religion. Where the pope was king the Inquisition was relatively mild.
Despite being an early developer of parliaments as checks against the powers of the kings of the many small states in Spain, the independence of the parliaments largely disappeared when all of Spain was brought under the control of the one ”Catholic Monarch” (as the monarchs styled themselves).
Spain became rigidly controlled by its monarch. The Inquisition, for instance, did not report to the Pope but to the king. The pope could not end its excesses because it was used an instrument of state control, not as an expression of religion. Where the pope was king the Inquisition was relatively mild.
Despite being an early developer of parliaments as checks against the powers of the kings of the many small states in Spain, the independence of the parliaments largely disappeared when all of Spain was brought under the control of the one ”Catholic Monarch” (as the monarchs styled themselves).
In Spain the king was the law. Then, in the Spanish colonies, each hacienda owner became the local king and the law. Even businesses owners became and acted like hacienda owners. This system of multiple petty kings and its rigidity stifled the growth of widespread ownership, widespread prosperity, business development, and the effective centralization of government required for innovative business development and the transfer of power to a parliamentary system. A feudal hierarchy continued to rule, in recent times with the military intervention and support of the United States because the US labelled any reform, however mild, as “Communist.” The support of the US allowed the small feudal class to develop large armies that would be used to stifle any democratic direction. That’s why so many people are fleeing Central American countries and trying to get into the USA. They have good reason to fear for their lives and for the future serfdom of their children.
One big exception has been Costa Rica, which has no army. This is the case, ironically, because way back the US offered Costa Rica a deal: if it had no army the US would defend it against any aggressor.
European colonies in Latin America in the past centuries were far enough from Europe, were rich and wide enough to be economically autonomous, and were commanded by europeans on¿bviously, so were intelligent and brave enough to ask and eventually fight for independency from their european controlling nations. This leaded to young nations, in hand of greedy -and thus corrupt- leaders, that instead of founding similar wealthy nations as the ones that raised them, preferred to start commercial trades with they former chiefs in Europe, taking unfair advantage of the natives, the poor and the vast
European colonies in Latin America in the past centuries were far enough from Europe, were rich and wide enough to be economically autonomous, and were commanded by europeans on¿bviously, so were intelligent and brave enough to ask and eventually fight for independency from their european controlling nations. This leaded to young nations, in hand of greedy -and thus corrupt- leaders, that instead of founding similar wealthy nations as the ones that raised them, preferred to start commercial trades with they former chiefs in Europe, taking unfair advantage of the natives, the poor and the vast universe of rural population. They brought them to the cities and converted them to workers of factories. The important fact is with the passing years a crevice/crack created between these two group of people. The elites felt deeply different from the working and poor class, and it still is. Never existed an homogeneous class, that could share a nation-wide feeling of good nationalism, shared with equality of oportunities, and that the soil, the water and the sky is there for benefit of the whole nation. With democracy things got worse, because the elites realized that votes can be raised easily if people remain poor and ignorant, thus learning how to vote was always the least concern of thes class of the elites and politics. The governs thus tended to remain in power for eternal periods of time, getting more corrupt and keeping big bussiness between them.
One important factor for Argentina, for instance, is a mix of effects that have Nazism, the cold war and Che Guevara as main characters. Argentina copied from Mussolini and Hitler the effective propaganda system to gather fanatics eventually voters, as well as populist model of politics that convert the political party in a monopoly at the elections. The crevice above mentioned was and has always been the key for keeping this corrupt political party in power for ever. The politics in turn don´t want neither they need wealthy and intelligent people, just the opposite. So, when Guevara took a gun and became a communist leader in Cuba, he became a popular and mithical hero among some argentine young people with communist ideals. The the Soviet Union the put missiles in Cuba and threatened USA. Those young argentine communist by this time guerrilla activists, thought that taking power by the use of guns would be as easy as Guevara did, adding that Guevara was Argentine, the plan was perfect. So the Soviet Union saw a perfect plan, turning Argentina in a communist country, and so, in the middle of the cold war, getting acess to a poerful nation with strategic location, big territory, and best of all, american. USA could not allow this situation so pushed for a de facto military coup, taking power and sistematically exterminating the guerrilla. Also, killing Guevara in Bolivia, coming down from Cuba, and minutes awar from taking power in his native country.
So latin american are poor for being young, having natural resourses that prevent them from starving even though they don’t produce important trading goods, or organize themselves to be prosperous nations. They don’t need order, they have food and good weather. They don’t need order, they have a geographical location on earth that is away from conflict areas that eventually would force them to have good armies, so they never fought to defend anything. They don’t need to vote the good guys, because voting the bad guys have enormous benefits with galactical public expenditure that keeps things working fine, like Keynes ruled, and let these politics do bussiness alone generation after generation.
Latin americans are poor because it was vastly proved in the nineteenth century that the native americans were not able to learn and practice european culture of order and progress. Julio A. Roca in Argentina exterminated the whole native population because of this reason, but latin america keeps being unable to understand and copy the way things must be run from civilized nations.
Latin americans didn’t suffered from two or three milleniums of wars and millions of gallons of human blood spilled for the sake of power. So they don’t know what is to fight for a couple of hundreds of square miles, because they have several millons of them with no belic neighbours around.
Easy way of life is the problem of latin americans.
The are a number of developed countries in Latin Ametica. Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Argentina to name a few. Some of the wealthiest people in the world live and are from Latin America.
The problem with countries in Latin America is not economic development, but income distribution. Wealth and development is concentrated in the top 10%. This historically has lead to less than favorable development and a robust increase in the middle class.
I just want to clarify that most Latin American countries (specifically Brazil, Argentina and Mexico) are not underdeveloped counties. They are DEVELOPING countries. There is a huge difference. With the exception of Chile which could arguably be considered a developed or close to developed country.
Please research your questions before posting.
Someone has already explained the difference: Carleone Saga's answer to How do you distinguish among developed, developing and under-developed countries?
The question really needs more context. As others have pointed out there are a lot of areas of development within Latin America both in terms of countries and of specific aspects of development.
Taking your question to mean the overall development of economy, society and infrastructure, there are a number of root causes that have contributed to lags in many Latin American countries when compared to
The question really needs more context. As others have pointed out there are a lot of areas of development within Latin America both in terms of countries and of specific aspects of development.
Taking your question to mean the overall development of economy, society and infrastructure, there are a number of root causes that have contributed to lags in many Latin American countries when compared to the U.S. and Canada and northern European countries which are typically the standards for "development".
As a whole, economic development in LATAM is well behind these other areas. Including the Caribbean, even the wealthiest countries lag in terms of GDP per capita with even Chile below the overall EU average at approximately $24K. By comparison Portugal is ranked 21st in Europe with an equivalent value. The U.S. ranks in at about $54K and according to the World Bank, there are 5 countries in northern Europe above that mark.
On the other hand, well over a dozen countries in LATAM have higher reported literacy rates than the U.S. and Colombia, Chile and Costa Rica are all ranked above the U.S. terms of access to healthcare by the WHO (the top countries in this are tend to be European).
Arguments could be made regarding a number of other parameters regarding development but lets get into why there is a perceived lag in LATAM.
For one thing, the history of Latin America is dominated by colonialism and exploitation. The U.S. of course all started on this path but circumstances allowed the U.S. to break free much earlier and more cleanly. For one thing, the colonists were the British who were understrength in terms of land army at the time and the U.S. also had considerable help from France. Latin American countries by comparison were targets of multiple countries (mainly Spain, Portugal and to a small extent, the Netherlands) and the colonization was more brutal and focused on almost entirely extractive economies.
Even after gaining independence, Latin America was largely dominated by the U.S. first under the Mon...
If before why . . .
Why don’t you consider Chile developed? And both Argentina & Uruguay were counted as developed at one time. They didn’t get poorer or less developed: other countries got richer & more developed faster than they did, & the definition changed with them.
South American countries are developing nations, please fix your question.
*Eastern Europeans for comparison reason
Very high human development
Chile 0.847
Argentina 0.827
High human development
Belarus 0.796 *
Uruguay 0.795
Bulgaria 0.794 *
Serbia 0.776 *
Venezuela 0.767
Albania 0.764 *
Brazil 0.754
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.750 *
Macedonia 0.748 *
Ukraine 0.743 *
Peru 0.740
Ecuador 0.739
Colombia 0.727
Suriname 0.725
Medium human development
Moldova 0.699 *
Paraguay 0.693
At least in part because of these guys.
At least in part because of these guys.
Many people seem to consider “developed” as a synonym of “rich”. There are many countries in Latin America that have resources and big industry, mostly Mexico and South America. I would consider them rich. But development means something different. Development is
-you having a job where you know your rights are going to be respected and enforced; so that you are not afraid of talking to our boss and colleagues if is there any situation that harms you.
-you having a job where is enough to work 8–5 every day and have weekend off, so that you can have quality time with your family.
-you going home w
Many people seem to consider “developed” as a synonym of “rich”. There are many countries in Latin America that have resources and big industry, mostly Mexico and South America. I would consider them rich. But development means something different. Development is
-you having a job where you know your rights are going to be respected and enforced; so that you are not afraid of talking to our boss and colleagues if is there any situation that harms you.
-you having a job where is enough to work 8–5 every day and have weekend off, so that you can have quality time with your family.
-you going home without the fear of attackers stealing your car at gunpoint, or having to get armed escort to go with you everywhere
-you knowing that you won’t have to work until your are 80, because you’ve gotten enough money in your retirement account so that you have pleasant old age
-you knowing that the money from your taxes will be used to improve your life, your neighboors’ and other persons too, so you are willing to pay them.
-you knowing that if you get sick, you can be confident on getting the medical services you need.
-you knowing that you can be successful without fearing that armed assaultants are going to kidnap you if your wealth becomes public topic.
And so on and so on.
Based on this criteria, I think actually there are no developed countries in Latin America. They are many rich countries and other not so rich that are developing right now.
Why some of the posted examples are not developed to me: Mexico is extremely rich and has one BIG distance between rich and poor, and one of the causes of the violence and also rampant corruption. Central american nations like Guatemala, Panama and Honduras have same problem with corruption, drug traffic and transparency. Costa Rica maybe is not so troubled as the ones mentioned earlier but kind of similar status. Colombia, Argentina, Brazil are doing well and exhibit wealth and development in many areas but still a large amount of people are living without access to enough food, medical services, education, etc.
- Because it was used as an extraction colony. Basically pillage it dont give anything back.
- it is underpopulated, most people live around the coasts or the mountains near the coasts, while inland south America is virtually empty covered in vast wild jungles, there are regions in south America that have never seen a human being.
- It is huge and disconnected within itself.
- Geography is wild. GIGANTIC mountain ranges that make the Alps or the Rockies look like kittens. Ennormous jungles, deserts, savanas, tundras, glacial areas you name it. That renders communication difficult.
- It was very developed bu
- Because it was used as an extraction colony. Basically pillage it dont give anything back.
- it is underpopulated, most people live around the coasts or the mountains near the coasts, while inland south America is virtually empty covered in vast wild jungles, there are regions in south America that have never seen a human being.
- It is huge and disconnected within itself.
- Geography is wild. GIGANTIC mountain ranges that make the Alps or the Rockies look like kittens. Ennormous jungles, deserts, savanas, tundras, glacial areas you name it. That renders communication difficult.
- It was very developed but fell behind… it is cycles, sooner or later it will go back up again.
According to the United Nations Human Development Index, Argentina and Chile, are considered Very High Human Development with living standards and GDPs per capita similar to European countries like Portugal and ahead of much of Eastern Europe and Russia. Uruguay also ranks as the third most developed South American country in this index, after Argentina (1st) and Chile (2nd).
The World Bank also classifies Argentina and Chile as High Income Economies.
Sources:
The best answer is found in Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond.
He says country development is very dependant on the land. USA and Canada were benefited with a similar climate with Europe, which allowed easy access to staple crops (wheat, mainly) and prevented large scale export - oriented commercial crops such as sugar and cotton.
While USA is mostly temperate, Brazil has at least 3 different climates (subtropical, equatorial and tropical). Coincidently, the most developed Brazilian regions are all subtropical or high altitude tropical.
Other important factor is access to two oceans. All
The best answer is found in Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond.
He says country development is very dependant on the land. USA and Canada were benefited with a similar climate with Europe, which allowed easy access to staple crops (wheat, mainly) and prevented large scale export - oriented commercial crops such as sugar and cotton.
While USA is mostly temperate, Brazil has at least 3 different climates (subtropical, equatorial and tropical). Coincidently, the most developed Brazilian regions are all subtropical or high altitude tropical.
Other important factor is access to two oceans. All north Americans countries have that, while only Colombia has that in south America.
Because the bit of North America between Mexico and Canada rapes their natural resources so rich men can own it's politicians.
Just look at the sanctions imposed on Cuba and Venezuela if you try and look after your own resources.
Bad political policies and ciclical economic crisis have keep many countries in the continent unequal in socioeconomic terms and political ones as well, still I would say Latin America isn´t doing as bad as it´s usually considered but it definitely can do a lot better. Acording to the human development index most countries there have a very high, high and medium HDI(Human development Index)
Latin America HDI: Three Territorial Levels
Bad political policies and ciclical economic crisis have keep many countries in the continent unequal in socioeconomic terms and political ones as well, still I would say Latin America isn´t doing as bad as it´s usually considered but it definitely can do a lot better. Acording to the human development index most countries there have a very high, high and medium HDI(Human development Index)
Latin America HDI: Three Territorial Levels
Just a short answer ¿What is to be developed?
I am writing from Chile, I am Argentinean.
In Chile life expectancy is something more than USA and crime rate something less, so it is more possible to live more time and have less chances to be killed, though I agree, cannot be classified as developed according the international standards.
Because first of all, the “developing” countries are not developing, but MAINTAINED IN UNDERDEVELOPMENT ON PURPOSE AND INDEFINITELY. The “aid” is designed to deepen the development of underdevelopment: to favor exports of raw materials to industries producing for First World’s consumerist markets at expenses of fabrication of poverty and underdevelopment in the Third World. Development/underdevelopment is to be judged by every country’s economic structures formed through History, and the moment snapshots of the evolution THE PROPERTY STRUCTURE are the portrait of it. Prior to the disaster fabr
Because first of all, the “developing” countries are not developing, but MAINTAINED IN UNDERDEVELOPMENT ON PURPOSE AND INDEFINITELY. The “aid” is designed to deepen the development of underdevelopment: to favor exports of raw materials to industries producing for First World’s consumerist markets at expenses of fabrication of poverty and underdevelopment in the Third World. Development/underdevelopment is to be judged by every country’s economic structures formed through History, and the moment snapshots of the evolution THE PROPERTY STRUCTURE are the portrait of it. Prior to the disaster fabricated by European colonialism and which continues through frustration of Third World’s independence, the societies of today’s Third World may have had “little” development or development on its own, but had not been “underdeveloped” in Western sense. The circle of domestic accumulation has never been closed down - it has been impeded from doing so through continuing foreign intervention.
Market, same as everything, functions in 3D, the 3rd is the income strata. The “progress” is not for all the strata. Every upper stratum solves its own problems at expenses of pushing the next inferior one downwards (vertically) or over the edge (horizontally). It’s the fight for getting closer to the sun. See the rest in my answer to my own question here What is the historical explanation of the development/underdevelopment phenomenon?
!
Sao Paulo state in Brazil has a human development index higher than 7 american states, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile score even higher.
Why you just Pick South america? Most of the world is not developed besides Europe, NorthAmerican, Australia, New Zealand and a couple Asian countries.South American countries by far not doing as bad as most african and asian countries.
Latin america is poor because it is poorly managed not because of colonialism.
Saying that colonialism is the reason why latin america is poor is nonsense. Venezuela and Argentina were among the richest countries in the 20th century and later own they became poor due to corruption and mismanagement of the economy. The other reasons what led to Venezuela becoming poor was due to chavez spending much money on social programs rather than the economy and failure to diversify the Venezuelan economy from being too reliant on oil.
Haiti became one of the poorest nations in the western hemisphere as a r
Latin america is poor because it is poorly managed not because of colonialism.
Saying that colonialism is the reason why latin america is poor is nonsense. Venezuela and Argentina were among the richest countries in the 20th century and later own they became poor due to corruption and mismanagement of the economy. The other reasons what led to Venezuela becoming poor was due to chavez spending much money on social programs rather than the economy and failure to diversify the Venezuelan economy from being too reliant on oil.
Haiti became one of the poorest nations in the western hemisphere as a result of heavy debt to pay to france, instability after the haitian revolution, corruption and decades of the rule of duvaliers who squandered much of the country's wealth and the brain drain of educated haitians mainly as a result of duvalier’s oppressive regime. Haiti used to be one of the richest places during the french colonial era and it just shows that colonialism isn't responsible for the misery that latin america has been through.
There are reasons why latin america is poor:
- Inequality
- Corruption
- Geopolitical factors
- Lack of Visionary or Competent leaders
- Mismanagement of Economies
- Decades of Political Issues
Despite latin america facing still facing challenges, they are countries such as dominican republic and costa rica which are doing better than other countries in latin america.
Simple
Corruption , populism , incompetence and negligence o the part of leadership
Argentina was the 8th economy if tge world during world war two
Now it is in shambles
Undoubtedly, Chile. This is the easiest country in the region to forecast the future due to the predictability and steadiness of its economy and politics, different from many region’s countries, like Argentina and Brazil.
This country is an example of how an economy can benefit from high economic freedom, relatively low taxes and bilateral trade agreement with many other countries.
I can also add to my argument that during my semester abroad I could realize how good and tough is the Chilean education, some European colleagues even mentioned that studying in Chile is way harder than in their home
Undoubtedly, Chile. This is the easiest country in the region to forecast the future due to the predictability and steadiness of its economy and politics, different from many region’s countries, like Argentina and Brazil.
This country is an example of how an economy can benefit from high economic freedom, relatively low taxes and bilateral trade agreement with many other countries.
I can also add to my argument that during my semester abroad I could realize how good and tough is the Chilean education, some European colleagues even mentioned that studying in Chile is way harder than in their home countries. The outcome of this level of quality in education is the increase of national productivity and the development of new technologies, leading to the creation of more wealth.
And it’s also worth it to point out that the average Chilean citizen is very politically engaged and aware of worldwide events.
To be honest, Chile doesn’t lag behind many European countries. I even dare to say this is the first developed country in the Latin American Region of the XXI century.
EDIT:
Brazil and Argentina are the two countries in the region with the highest potential to skyrocket. But this will only happen once they have managed to get more open to international commerce, reduced their bureaucracy, decreased taxes on their citizens and businesses, privatized many inefficient sectors of the economy, and stop protecting the monopolists/olygopolists of these countries.
EDIT 2: Answer written before the 2019 Riots.
EDIT 3: Now in 2020, just forget what I wrote. Chile peaked in 2018, now I am afraid is only going down stream. Unfortunately.
South America is not small. These countries are pretty big in land size. These are land comparisons. They look huge in these land comparisons. Brazil is the 5th largest country. Argentina stretches from Morocco to Belarus. Colombia takes up most of Alaska size. Chile stretches from California to Connecticut. Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg could fit inside Uruguay with room remaining.
South America is not small. These countries are pretty big in land size. These are land comparisons. They look huge in these land comparisons. Brazil is the 5th largest country. Argentina stretches from Morocco to Belarus. Colombia takes up most of Alaska size. Chile stretches from California to Connecticut. Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg could fit inside Uruguay with room remaining.
Its because of all of the ‘‘red tape’’ inherited from the Spanish colonial institutions which favors accumulation of wealth, unadequate infrastructure, income inequality and poor education and healthcare.
- Chile cannot be considered a poor country. Guyana grew 67% last year due to oil revenues. Uruguay and Paraguay are countries with a good quality of life for simple people. Argentina and Brazil have their problems, but they are still the largest countries in South America. Brazil is the largest economy in Latin America - it designs and manufactures planes, helicopters and submarines! It is already assembling Grippen fighters with support from Sweden. There is a Space Agency. In a few years, space rockets and satellites will be made using indigenous technology. And there is Mexico, which borders
- Chile cannot be considered a poor country. Guyana grew 67% last year due to oil revenues. Uruguay and Paraguay are countries with a good quality of life for simple people. Argentina and Brazil have their problems, but they are still the largest countries in South America. Brazil is the largest economy in Latin America - it designs and manufactures planes, helicopters and submarines! It is already assembling Grippen fighters with support from Sweden. There is a Space Agency. In a few years, space rockets and satellites will be made using indigenous technology. And there is Mexico, which borders the USA and is becoming the Economic Machine of North America. So, it makes no sense to call Latin America "poor", given that poverty is a human issue and exists even in countries called "First World" and must be combated so that people can succeed in life on their own merits.
- In fact, the Latin American problem is the distribution of wealth.
- Trillions of Dollars in the Hands of Oligarchs.
- And this is the real problem...
The only countries in Latin America that are dirt poor are:
Honduras (Ravaged by violence, corruption, climate change) Mostly a tiny country with only 3 million people.
Haiti (No need to explain)
Cuba (communism)
Venezuela (was rich, became poor due to communism)
The largest countries in Latin America are actually pretty good.
Out of 198 countries out there, Latin America’s five largest rank as follows:
- Brazil 9th largest economy on earth, human development index : High.
- Mexico 14th largest economy on earth, human development index : High.
- Argentina 21th largest economy on earth, human dev. index : Ver
The only countries in Latin America that are dirt poor are:
Honduras (Ravaged by violence, corruption, climate change) Mostly a tiny country with only 3 million people.
Haiti (No need to explain)
Cuba (communism)
Venezuela (was rich, became poor due to communism)
The largest countries in Latin America are actually pretty good.
Out of 198 countries out there, Latin America’s five largest rank as follows:
- Brazil 9th largest economy on earth, human development index : High.
- Mexico 14th largest economy on earth, human development index : High.
- Argentina 21th largest economy on earth, human dev. index : Very High.
- Colombia 33rd largest economy on earth, human dev. index : High.
- Peru 41st largest economy on earth, human dev. index : High.
Out of 198 countries, occupying the top 25% of the world’s largest economies is hardly being poor.
Latin America overall is richer than Africa, than all of the middle East except for the oil rich oil kingdoms, than all of Asia outside Japan, south Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. Than India, Pakistan and all of Central Asia.
The question is, why are there so many latin Americans that are poor. That is due to the legacy of colonialism, the race caste, slavery, white supremacy.
I am not economist but old enough to conclude that it Is a matter of leadership and idiosyncrasy. Argentina was in the process of fast development up to the 50’s and populist leadership destroyed it all. Brazil was doing good after a sequence of coups and dictators since the 60’s and felt back in the 90’s due to populism and socialism. Venezuela was doing great very fast up until 1958, then democracy slowed it down with corruption and felt to the populist leadership socialist-communist. The immigration was big but mainly farmers and laborers. The educated immigration would go to the US and Can
I am not economist but old enough to conclude that it Is a matter of leadership and idiosyncrasy. Argentina was in the process of fast development up to the 50’s and populist leadership destroyed it all. Brazil was doing good after a sequence of coups and dictators since the 60’s and felt back in the 90’s due to populism and socialism. Venezuela was doing great very fast up until 1958, then democracy slowed it down with corruption and felt to the populist leadership socialist-communist. The immigration was big but mainly farmers and laborers. The educated immigration would go to the US and Canada during the WWII. The developed countries are also taking advantage of the situation to get products and services at low cost, so to help those countries to developing is not a priority for them. Countries that suffered from Wars were the ones that developed faster because people changed when they got close to loose it all. Example: Korea, China, Japan, Singapore, Europe. An exception is the Middle East because they have been always in a war. This is only an opinion.